As a curtain of censorship
falls over the UK internet, this special investigation uncovers the deception
and elite players behind the murky system of corporate web filters, which block
far more than pornography. Disturbingly, the trail points back to a notorious
and controversial elite cabal – the ultra-secretive Bilderberg Group.

The UK’s sweeping internet censorship plans are ramping up, with the country’s
main internet service providers (ISPs), who service 95% of UK households, rolling out ‘default’ web filters to meet the government’s
call for an internet clampdown.

State-sanctioned internet
filtering on this scale, often condemned when carried out by authoritarian
regimes, is unparalleled in “free” western countries and sets a dangerous
precedent. The way this policy has been introduced, sold and now implemented
has been misleading and deceptive all along. Last year, Prime Minister David
Cameron led the public to believe this is all about blocking pornography to stop the “corruption of childhood”,
but it’s apparent the well-worn “think of the children” argument was just
Trojan horse propaganda to create a moral pretext for introducing extensive
censorship infrastructure.

While proponents point
out people can still ask their ISPs to turn the filters off, the problem is the
filters block more than people are led to believe and operate without
transparency. They already target much more than pornography, and their reach will
likely creep as time goes on. This is already happening. And who ultimately decides what these
unaccountable, shadowy corporate web filters block is shrouded in mystery.

The Bilderberg Group is an ultra-secretive annual gathering of elite
global powerbrokers. Source: deesillustration.com

There was a long,
well-orchestrated campaign to put these filters in place. A moral panic about
online pornography was carefully manufactured to pave the way years before this
occurred. I hope to unravel how this happened, and who is involved. A look at
the players and history leading up to the policy announcement reveals the
influence of various elite powerbrokers in government, media, international
business, and religious lobby groups. Ultimately, the trail appears to point
back to the ultra-secretive Bilderberg Group – a shadowy annual gathering of corporate,
financial, international and government elites who meet on the sly away from
the public eye, and discuss – and some would say set – global policy in complete secrecy.

I am concerned that
behind these machinations is a hidden agenda that could see swathes of
alternative websites blacked-out in a so-called free country, and that
alternative spirituality is bound to be targeted. I am also concerned that the
UK may just be the beginning. At this juncture it is important to reflect on
how this policy arose, and where it is headed, to understand the serious
ramifications for Britain and potentially the world. This article is a detailed
investigation, so I’ve broken it up into 5 pages. I wanted to put all this
information together in one post, and it turns out I dug up a lot more than I
initially expected.

So to get a full picture
of what is going on here, let’s take a look at how this censorship system
works, then we’ll examine the elite powerbrokers pushing these plans, and the
far-reaching implications of their agenda.

The Problem:
Anti-Porn Catch-cry Just a Cover for a Sweeping Censorship Coup

David Cameron announcing the UK’s ISP web filter policy Source: PCmag

In July last year, UK
Prime Minister David Cameron called for internet censorship in the UK under the guise of
protecting children from accessing legal pornography (illegal child abuse
material was already
blocked). This happened after a moral panic about pornography had been
running for some time, which I’ll explain further on.

After the announcement,
digital rights advocate Open Rights Group warned
that based on broad indications from ISPs, the filters would target multiple
content categories in addition to pornography, including “esoteric material”
and “web forums”. Many
predicted the sweeping state-sanctioned web filters would wind up extending
far beyond porn. And that’s exactly what happened. These are not merely “porn
filters” despite being deceptively referred to as such.

Now operational, the
filters do indeed block a murky medley of content categories. Swathes of
non-pornographic websites have already been caught in the dragnet, including charities and women’s rights websites. Those who warned over-blocking
would happen – either by design or by accident – have been proven right. And
since the filters have been announced, the government has suggested it will now
seek to block “extremist websites” and “unsavoury content” without providing any clear explanation
of how these terms will be applied. The Government’s use of vague and slippery
catch-all terms have many concerned the filters will inevitably be used to
suppress dissent.

An Outsourced
Censorship Regime

Unlike in countries like
China, the UK has outsourced web censorship to the private sector, with the
UK’s four main ISPs, Talk Talk, BT, Sky and Virgin all filtering their own
networks.

The UK Government pressured and coerced the ISPs to install the filters and now, publicly
at least, it is standing back and letting the corporations iron out the
details. Could this be a shrewd attempt to introduce an unprecedented level of
censorship at arm’s length while avoiding liability or accountability for its implementation
and overreach?

Lack of
Transparency and oversight

There is a major lack of transparency in this setup. Astonishingly, there
seems to be no legal oversight or clear regulatory framework for this massive
outsourced censorship system. There is no clear and unified definition of blocked content categories or explanations as to why they
warrant blocking, and no easy way to find out which sites are blocked or why.
There is also no clear way to discover if your website is blocked by one or
more of the ISPs (especially if you’re outside the UK), nor is there a single
avenue of appeal if you’re even able to find out, because each ISP operates its
own inscrutable filter. This leaves the public in the dark as to what is really
happening – and perhaps that’s just how the government wants it.

The opaque system is
probably deliberate. Not only does it allow the Government to wash its hands
and avoid being held accountable for the implementation of the creeping
censorship it introduced, but it makes it possible for hidden players to
influence things behind the scenes unseen, and for a range of content to be
blocked without people even realising it. A system so unaccountable is ripe for
misuse, abuse and overreach.

The government has faced
some hiccups however. Over-blocking concerns were highlighted after charity
websites were blocked. In response the Government announced that it was
covertly setting up a whitelist to protect the sites deemed off-limits from the
filters. But just think of the implications of this. A backroom gathering of
officials has now taken upon itself, behind closed doors, to unilaterally pick
out the sites out of the millions on the World Wide Web that they think should
not be censored by their filtering system, which they also instated through
backroom meetings. Does this mean that any sites that don’t make it on the whitelist
are fair game? And if the government has taken upon itself to setup a
whitelist, has it also setup a blacklist? If so, how do you find out if you are
on it?

But given that people
tend to trust default settings given by their providers, could it be people are
being nudged
into selecting censorship by stealth? And if people don’t know how the filters
really work and what they actually block, can they really make an informed
choice?

Proponents of the
censorship also often completely ignore the rights of content creators in this
system. People whose websites are arbitrarily blocked in the UK will have a
hard time discovering it. What “active choice” do they have? How can private
companies be given so much unaccountable power over what content is appropriate
or not for the UK population?

How did this happen? How
did this extensive and insidious stealth censorship infrastructure get rolled
out while people were hoodwinked into thinking it was all about saving children
from porn? To understand how, let’s take a look at the way these plans unfolded
and examine the elite powerbrokers linked to these developments, including
those with connections to the Bilderberg Group.

UK Censorship
Policy Origins and the Bilderberg Meeting in 2006

It took years to prep the
public for this state-sanctioned censorship scheme outsourced to corporations.
To understand how, we have to turn back the clock to 2006. It was a pivotal
year. 2006 was the year George Osborne, a super-rich aristocrat, then in opposition as the UK
Conservative Party’s shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, travelled to Canada
for his first Bilderberg conference. He has been a regular attendee to Bilderberg meetings since, attending
Bilderberg 2014 currently being held in Copenhagen, his seventh time at the
elite secret assembly of global powerbrokers.

2006 was also the year
ex-banker Claire Perry joined the Conservative Party.

Claire Perry and George Osborne. Image: David Hartley Source: The
Daily Mail

In May 2010 the
Conservative Party won Government in coalition with the Liberal Democrats.
David Cameron became Prime Minister while his close friend George Osborn was
given charge of the economy as Chancellor
of the Exchequer – generally considered the second most powerful position
in government. George Osborne’s “protégé” Claire Perry came to occupy a “surprisingly large” office in Whitehall for a junior MP,
sharing an office with the Chancellor’s staff.

In late May the new
administration released its program for government, which included vague pledges to
tackle the undefined “sexualisation of childhood”.

Soon a few religious
lobby groups joined the act. In August Mother’s Union launched a campaign
to “challenge the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood” and
“influence government to take action on the issue”. Then in October 2010 the
religious pressure group Media March formally registered as the charity Safer Media with the
specific objective to “minimise the availability of potentially harmful media
content”.

Now all the pieces were
in place, and the propaganda campaign began in earnest.

Two days later Claire
Perry called for internet censorship in a parliamentary debate. This is where the blueprint for the
UK’s current network-level filtering scheme was first laid out by a member of
the governing party.

Claire Perry’s calls were
very specific. She made it clear ISPs should be responsible for controlling
children’s access to the internet, not parents. She said ISPs should operate
network-level adult content filters and that these should be switched on by
default for all customers, who would have to make a conscious choice to switch
them off.

“I am asking for a change
in regulation that would require all UK-based internet service providers to
restrict universal access to pornographic material…” Claire Perry in
Parliament, 23 November 2010.

At the heart of her
proposal was the view that parents are unable to take responsibility for
raising their own children and are incapable of installing parental controls on
their own computers, therefore state intervention was needed. She extolled
TalkTalk’s plans to introduce a network filter in the new year, but chided them
for making it a “voluntary system… with the onus on parents to sign up” instead
of “default on” with the onus of users to turn it off.

However, Claire Perry,
not being a Minister, was not stating official Government policy at the time,
but just what she thought the Government’s policy should be. The Minister for
Communications Ed Vaizey initially disagreed with her idea to shift
responsibility from parents onto ISPs:

“I hear what my hon.
Friend says about the need for ISPs to block this content, but I think it
important for parents to take responsibility, and to use the filters and
parental controls that are available in current technology to prevent their
children from accessing harmful material.” Ed
Vaizey, Minister of Communications

But he ended by saying:

“I firmly believe we can
make progress, in co-operation with the ISPs, and that we can proceed on the
basis of self-regulation. As I have said, I think it is important that we meet
and sit around a table to exchange views, and I look forward to brokering such
a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes and a
number of organisations she deems to be appropriate” [emphasis
added].

Claire Perry must be very
influential indeed. It’s quite interesting that within a few weeks’ time the
man supposedly responsible for the UK’s communications policy would not only be
toeing Claire Perry’s line after publicly disagreeing with her, but also
peddling her views to the media.

Bailey Review
Commissioned

Nine days after Claire
Perry’s speech in parliament, Mothers’ Union CEO Reg Bailey (the first man to be
appointed CEO of the organisation in its 120-year history) was appointed by Sarah Tether, Minister of State for Children
and Families (and member of the Liberal Democrats), to chair an “independent
review” of the “commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood”.

It was reported that some of David Cameron’s closest aides had
been “determined to see a clampdown on childhood advertising” but the
independent review was undertaken as a “compromise” with its coalition partners
after the Conservative Party “faced opposition from some Liberal Democrats
worried about censorship and freedom”.

Shock
Premature Policy Announcement via Murdoch Media

Then something unexpected
happened. Just two weeks after the announcement of an independent review that
was yet to commence or make any recommendations, Communications Minister Ed
Vaizey made a shock policy announcement via Rupert Murdoch’s paper, The Sunday Times, in an exclusive story
announcing a new government plan to have ISPs “voluntarily” implement default
network-level filtering to block porn to protect children – exactly what Claire
Perry, protégé of Bilderberg frequenter George Osborne, had called for in
parliament weeks earlier.

Vaizey threatened to
introduce legislation to force ISPs to filter if they did not “get their acts
together” and do so “voluntarily”. This was the man who less than a month ago
said that parents needed to take responsibility for their children’s internet
use, not ISPs.

TalkTalk, whose plans for
network-level filtering was praised by Claire Perry in parliament –
and who were caught secretly monitoring the web usage of their 4.2 million
users 5 months prior – were also quoted saying: “’If other companies aren’t
going to do it [install filters] of their own volition, then maybe they should
be leant on.”

The Sunday Times magazine also featured the front
page headline “Generation XXX – how
internet porn is shaping teenagers’ *** lives”, and included an
“eight-page investigation” with the feature article ***: Porn in cyberspace (pay walled: full version here) which also reported on Ed Vaizey’s announcement and
quoted Claire Perry.

The use of the Murdoch
media to make the surprise policy announcement, and the pre-prepared editorial
focus and support from the paper for the censorship policy, suggests a highly
coordinated approach between politicians and media. It should also be noted
that the media mogul Rupert Murdoch is a reputed Bilderberger and has a
reputation for exerting strong editorial control over the major issues covered
by his papers.

The UK Internet Services
Providers’ Association (ISPA UK) initially rebuffed
the Government’s Murdoch media-announced plan, stating: “ISPA firmly believes
that controls on children’s access to the internet should be managed by parents
and carers with the tools ISPs provide, rather than being imposed top-down,”
which was basically the same view Ed Vaizey had expressed just a few weeks
prior.

At this point in time the
public was not yet ready to accept the censorship push. But a self-reinforcing
feedback loop was built up between the government and lobbyists via the media
pushing this agenda, increasing pressure on ISPs to implement censorship at the
State’s behest. Over time the pressure increased.

Safer Media
and Claire Perry unleash a censorship campaign

In December 2010 Safer
Media had an open letter published in TheSunday Times expressing
support for Ed Vaizey’s initiative. Claire Perry MP was one of the signatories.

Then in early 2011 Safer
Media launched a campaign, headed by Claire Perry, to block online porn. Safer Media
provided a template letter for people to write to their ISPs, stating:
“I strongly support the initiative, suggested by Claire Perry MP, to switch the
default setting for internet pornography into our homes to ‘OFF’…”

Source: marlboroughnewsonline.co.uk

By February 2011, Ed Vaizey
and Claire Perry were holding a backroom meeting with ISPs to discuss internet filtering,
and according
to Safer Media went in “armed with over 1000 emails of support from the
public.” Initially these censorship moves were supported by parent advocacy
group Mumsnet, but they promptly withdrew support after their members “reacted angrily” and
“criticised Mumsnet for promoting censorship and shifting responsibility away
from parents”.

But Claire Perry is not
one to back down when she doesn’t get her way. In March 2011, she famously
stormed into the parliamentary tearoom and vented her frustration at not being given the chance to
speak in the preceding parliamentary debate. “What have I got to do to be
called by the Speaker? Give him a b*** j**?” she fumed. This was not the only occasion the woman who’s been dubbed Britain’s
‘new breed’ or ‘iron lady’ has shown a propensity for a potty mouth. She
famously rebuffed claims internet filtering would cause over-blocking as a “load of c**k”. It’s quite ironic that the person most
responsible for pushing through the UK’s censorship scheme to “protect the
children”, has such little regard for the children in her choice of words as a
parliamentarian and role model.

TalkTalk
Launch Chinese-linked Web filter

The momentum for Perry’s
censorship scheme really gained ground in May 2011 when TalkTalk launched its
network-level filter Homesafe,
making it the first of the UK’s four major ISPs to fall in line with Perry’s
plans.

Much later it was
revealed that Homesafe is operated by the Chinese firm Huawei, which is
suspected of spying for the Chinese government, and that all of TalkTalk’s web
traffic is routed through the company’s filter whether customers have the
filters on or off. Disturbingly, the software driving Homesafe is also based on
Chinese software initially developed to suppress religious minorities and
political dissidents in China. More on that later.

When TalkTalk launched
its filter, which was at that stage voluntary (now it is “default on”) Claire
Perry welcomed the move as proof her censorship plans were
technically feasible. A TalkTalk spokesperson was quoted saying Ed Vaizey and Claire Perry were “very
pleased” with the filter, and claimed, “now that one ISP has come out with a
solution, I’m sure others will do so too”.

Around the same time,
Safer Media and Mediawatch UK ramped up their campaign to get other ISPs to
follow in TalkTalk’s government-endorsed footsteps. They held a rally, with Claire Perry in attendance, and erected a “block porn”
message in block letters outside British Telecom (BT) offices, one of the UK’s
main internet providers.

Bailey Review
Published – does not call for ISP filters

In June 2011 the Bailey
Review was published. This review reinforced the government’s view of the
sexualisation of childhood and was accused of positing a circular argument about this problem that was not backed by
research. Nevertheless, the review was notably far more restrained in its
recommendations compared to the authoritarian measures Claire Perry and Safer
Media wanted.

Bailey called for ISPs to
develop and provide parental controls for customers, but did not insist or
recommend they be operated at the network-level by the ISPs themselves. In
other words, this web control software could be supplied to parents to install
and operate on their own computers if they wished to, something many ISPs
already did.

Furthermore, the review
did not recommend that parental control filters should be “default on”, but instead
recommended parents should be given an “active choice”, where they are asked to
decide whether they wanted to switch filters on or not. It also suggested these
measures should be implemented voluntarily, and that the government should only
consider new legislation if voluntary regulation fails. The report warned
against overstating the effectiveness of filters, calling them “not completely
effective”, and pointing out the need for parents to be “actively responsible”
for the safety of their children on the internet.

David Cameron sent a letter to Reg Bailey supporting his
report as “consistent with this government’s overall approach and my long held
belief that the leading force for progress should be social responsibility, not
state control.” The industry response to the review was generally positive, because it did not recommend
legislation. The Internet Services Providers Association (ISPA UK) welcomed
the report’s “balanced approach” and emphasis on parental responsibility
alongside technological solutions, and pointed out most ISPs already offered
parental control software which parents could install if they wished.

But the government’s
stance would soon harden. As we’ll see, the government would soon be using
authoritarian rhetoric, and winning praise from China in the process.

George
Osborne Attends Bilderberg 2011 and Government Censorship Calls Harden

There was a notable
hardening in the government’s rhetoric after George Osborne attended the 2011
Bilderberg Conference in St. Moritz, Switzerland.

In August 2011,
ostensibly in response to the 2011 UK riots, David Cameron made a speech in parliament
stating the government was working with police, intelligence services and
industry to see if they could “stop people from communicating” via websites and social
media when they “know” people are “plotting violence, disorder and criminality”.
Concerns were raised about how the government planned to “know” what everyone
was doing on the internet.

“…the open discussion of
containment of the Internet in Britain has given rise to a new opportunity for
the whole world. Media in the US and Britain used to criticize developing
countries for curbing freedom of speech. Britain’s new attitude will help
appease the quarrels between East and West over the future management of the
Internet.”

Two weeks later, Claire
Perry MP announced her own “independent parliamentary inquiry” into
online child protection. The Perry Review sought to “establish the arguments
for and against network level filtering” and would “recommend to Government the
possible form of regulation required if ISPs fail to meet Recommendation no.5
from the Bailey Review” (Note that recommendation 5 called for active choice,
not default-on network-level filtering).

You can clearly see that
Claire Perry had an agenda to push. When the previous Bailey Review did not
recommend what she really wanted – network-level filtering—she just launched
and chaired her own lobbyist-backed quasi-parliamentary inquiry with a
predetermined outcome.

In September 2011 Perry
chaired the first public evidence session at which “witnesses” gave testimony. Meanwhile the government
continued with its “active choice” policy per the Bailey Review and announced that ISPs would soon be required to have all
customers make an active decision about blocking “offensive content”, as
distinct from unlawful content, with parental controls.

Major ISPs
Announce New Code of Practice

On 11 October 2011, the
UK’s major ISPs announced a new code of practice in line with the
Bailey Review, giving parents an “active choice” to install and operate
parental controls. The ISPs made clear the policy did not involve automatic
blocking or require them to offer network-level filtering, and actively sought
to dispel rumours about this. BT, Sky and Virgin Media already
offered PC-based parental control software on the network installation CD for
new customers. The code simply required them to give customers an unavoidable
choice about whether they wanted to install that filtering software during
their setup process. Only TalkTalk was choosing to offer optional network-level
filtering at this time.

In a media statement, Claire Perry called the initiative “a good
first step” but said more needed to be done and the only way to “fully protect
our children” was with a default filtering system. She also called on the other
ISPs to offer “one-click protection” like TalkTalk.

Murdoch Media
Slams the Code

On 16 October 2011 Rupert Murdoch’s The Sunday Times slammed the new code
of practice with the story, “Scheme to
block web porn ‘a sham’” which claimed “a leaked copy of the code” revealed
the ISPs would only “offer new customers the option of installing software to
control their children’s access”. However, this was no revelation – the ISPs
made clear that was exactly what they were doing, and this is also exactly what
the Bailey Review had called for.

Eleanor Mills wrote a
column in The Sunday Times
calling the new measures “A false promise over web porn that betrays our children”.
She had been heavily involved in The
Sunday Times’ exclusive announcement of government plans for a
default network-level porn block in December 2010 – before the Bailey Review made
less stringent recommendations which the ISPs were now fulfilling.

Block Porn
Campaign Ramps Up

On 18 October 2011,
Claire Perry chaired the second public evidence session of her “parliamentary
inquiry” into online child protection. Following the session, Claire Perry
stated that a report was being drafted and would be delivered to the
Prime Minister. No one could have anticipated just how significant her report
would be for the future of the UK internet.

Also around this time
there was a public outcry over the murderer Vincent Tabak, who was sentenced to
life in prison for strangling a woman who was his neighbour. It was revealed
that he possessed violent *** videos of women being strangled and subscribed to
hard-core internet porn (evidence for which was deemed inadmissible in court).
It was suggested in the media that Mr Tabak’s pornography habits
motivated the killing, but this was never proven.

Nevertheless, it
reignited calls for ISPs to block legal pornography. In late October 2011 The Daily Mail reported the Church of
England was considering withdrawing the millions it had invested in ISPs unless
they took action to stop “the seemingly unstoppable flood of hard-core and
violent pornography”. The Bishop of Bristol also called for ISPs to block content
of the kind viewed by murderer Vincent Tabak and encouraged shareholders in the
internet companies to pressure the ISPs to take action.

Then on 7 February 2012,
Safer Media, in conjunction with Premier Christian Media, launched the SafetyNet website running
the “Protecting Innocence Online” campaign, providing an online petition
calling for default internet filtering. That very same day, the government released
new industry guidelines and suggested it would push further than what ISPs
already had agreed to in their code of practice. The statement claimed “Many
parents often feel bewildered and confused about how to protect their children
from the potential risks online”.

Later that month the
government hosted talks with ISPs “to discuss giving parents more
choice in how the internet in their home is filtered.” In a statement,
Communications Minister Ed Vaizey claimed “more needs to be done”. It seems
that at this point, the government was gearing up to follow Claire Perry’s line
that self-installed parental controls are too difficult for parents, as a
justification for intervention by the State.

Perry
Publishes Lobbyist-backed Report

On 17 April 2012, Claire
Perry’s parliamentary inquiry into child protection sponsored by
Safer Media and Premier Christian Radio was published on her website. It called
for ISPs to provide network-level filtering within 12 months and for the
government to initiate a formal consultation into implementing this policy.

With some help from the
media, eventually that’s exactly what happened, against the wishes of parents
in the UK.

On 26 April 2012 The Daily Mailreported that the Labour Party (the British Opposition) had
thrown its support behind The Daily
Mail’s campaign to block porn. The pressure to filter the internet
was mounting. Claire Perry continued to keep the pressure up, and sponsored a
seminar in the House of Commons where Dr William Struthers told MPs that
children “are scarred for life by porn on internet.”

Government Consultations Announced – The Daily Mail Declares
Victory

Claire Perry and the
media soon made an impact. On 28 June 2012, the government announced public consultations where parents and businesses would be
asked whether “automatic online blocks should be introduced to protect children
from adult and harmful websites”. The
Daily Mail was given advanced notice of this and announced the plan the day before the government did,
proclaiming, “The move is a victory for the Daily Mail’s Block Online Porn
campaign” and showcasing previous campaign headlines:

The Daily Mail highlighting how it “led
the way” for content filtering

The trouble for Claire
Perry and The Daily Mail was
that the majority of parents consulted did not end up supporting default web
filtering. Before the consultations were completed, the paper seemed to catch
wind of this before the consultations closed. In September they reported that Ministers ‘have been sabotaging’ the battle to block porn on
internet and posited the absurd premise that the consultation process was
“confusing and complicated, deterring many from taking part” because it
required people to follow the complicated steps of downloading a word document
questionnaire, filling it out, and then re-uploading it.

After a cosy meeting
between David Cameron and Ren Zhengfei, Huawei announced plans to invest $2
billion in the UK economy and David Cameron declared the UK was “open for
business” despite ongoing security concerns and warnings by a former security
official he was “dealing with the devil”.

A few weeks after that, The Daily Mailreported David Cameron had new proposals to “toughen up
controls on internet pornography” which “go much further than a blueprint drawn
up by Reg Bailey” and were “a significant step forward for the Daily Mail’s
Block Online Porn campaign.”

“Claire is a passionate
campaigner for internet safety and mother of three. Her job will be to see this
through, to get internet companies on board, to do what it takes to protect
children and young people online”.

The Daily Mail declares victory after
the government ignores the wishes of parents

Whatever happened to
Claire Perry’s claims that she would change her position on default blocking by
ISPs if people showed they did not want it – which is exactly what the
consultations did show? David Cameron was criticised for doing a U-turn “after
receiving a mauling in the Daily Mail” and ignoring the wishes of parents who,
in the government’s own consultation, clearly showed they did not want default
blocking.

And so the relentless
censorship campaign continued, and a series of backroom discussions with ISPs
ensued, as the government sought to get them fully on board with implementing
their plan.

Later in May 2013, the
government announced plans to make public WiFi more family-friendly
and also released the Bailey Review Progress Report. Interestingly, the report
showed that Bailey’s recommendations had been met, but until network-level
filters were installed by all main ISPs, those pushing for it would not be
satisfied.

But those seeking
network-level censorship soon had their way after the Bilderberg meeting
was held in the UK in 2013.

Bilderberg
2013 and the UK Web Censorship Announcement

From 6-9 June 2013 the
Bilderberg Conference was held in Hertfordshire in the UK. Both David Cameron
and George Osborne attended,
as did the Labour Party’s Shadow Chancellor Ed *****, and UK taxpayers had to foot the security bill for the secret discussions they
weren’t allowed to know about. David Cameron had no qualms about attending the
ultra-secretive proceedings and footing the security bill with taxpayers money,
despite previously promising the same taxpayers he would lead “the most open and transparent government ever“.

After this clandestine
gathering, everything changed. Within a matter of weeks, an ISP filtering
policy was formally announced in the UK, with backing from both major parties.

Claire Perry at the “Generation XXX: Saving our children from the
dangers of online pornography” symposium organised by Rupert Murdoch’s The Sunday Times and held at Policy Exchange

Policy Exchange’s links
to the Bilderberg Group are no secret. A year earlier, Nick Boles MP, a founder
and former director of Policy Exchange, attended the 2012
Bilderberg Conference in Virginia. According to a report by The Examiner, Nick Boles “is a member of the
influential Notting Hill Set of MPs of which George Osborne is a member. He is
a founder of the Policy Exchange think tank which is an important part of the
Cameron government… He is a member of the Henry Jackson Society which advocates
force to spread democracy.”

During the event, when
critics pointed out that filters caused over-blocking due to false positives,
Claire Perry rebuffed that such problems were “a load of c**k”.

Labour Party
Jumps on the Bandwagon

The next day after the
symposium, The Labour Party tried to pass a motion in parliament that conflated child
abuse images with legal adult pornography, and claimed that 1.5 million people
had viewed child abuse material (this figure has been debunked). They criticised the government for allegedly
failing to meet the recommendations of the Bailey Review (though it was
actually going way beyond what he recommended), and called on the government to
bring forward legislation.

Murdoch Media
Launches “Generation Porn” Censorship Campaign

The infographic with dubious
statistics used in The Sunday Times’
“Generation Porn” campaign

Two days after that, the The Sunday Times launched its
“Generation Porn” campaign and published the leader “Protect Children from the Power of Porn” and the feature
article “Generation Porn” by Eleanor Mills, who had chaired the
symposium at Policy Exchange. People were invited to sign-up to “Join the Sunday Times campaign to safeguard
children from online pornography”.

The campaign used a striking infographic claiming: ’36% of the internet is
pornography’ ‘1 in 4 search queries is about porn’ ‘A third of all downloads
are porn’ ‘Online porn makes $3,000 a second’ ‘…and your child has access to it
all”. All of these statistics have been shown to be highly questionable.

July 2013: UK
Web Filtering Officially Announced

The next month, the
government announced its now infamous web filter policy. On 21 July 2013, The Daily Mail published the article “Net porn block on EVERY home: Victory for the Mail as PM
pledges ‘opt in’ rule for all web users” which announced David Cameron’s
plans to have porn blocked by default to every householder in the UK unless
they asked to receive it. The story quoted David Cameron saying: “The Daily
Mail has campaigned hard to make internet search engine filters ‘default on’.
Today they can declare that campaign a success”. The original story announced
David Cameron’s policies before he had actually publicly announced them,
showing a high level of coordination between Mr Cameron and the paper.

The next day David
Cameron officially announced his censorship plans in a speech. In
his speech, he conflated legal pornography material with illegal child abuse
material (already blocked) which created the emotive impression that not
supporting censorship meant supporting paedophiles. This same emotive
conflation ran rife through the media’s coverage too. And the government kept
pushing the line that they had to get ISPs to filter the internet because
home-installed parental control software was just too baffling for most parents
— when in reality, the government knew that only 7% of parents did not understand how to use such
software.

The fact that illegal
child abuse material was already blocked by ISPs, and the new filtering was
going way beyond legal adult material was drowned out in cries to ‘protect the
children’. Following the announcement, few mainstream media outlets, with some exceptions, even reported that the “porn filters”
would target a swathe of material apart from porn.

From looking at the
history leading up to this policy announcement, the interconnected web of elite
interests becomes visible. Clearly the ex-banker Claire Perry – who came from
nowhere to become the protégé of 7-time Bilderberger George Osborne and a
hugely influential politician — was the main agent pushing the agenda, driving
through what would become official UK policy with the support of religious
charity Safer Media.

But the agenda would not
have gotten very far without support from two key quarters: The media, in
particular The Daily Mail,
and industry, in particular Huawei who operated the first network-level filter
in the UK, and proved it was technically feasible.

Next up, we’ll take a
closer look at the roles they played in this scheme.

The Daily
Mail – Key Player in Censorship Push

The British tabloid The Daily Mail played a crucial role
in prepping the public for censorship with sensational stories pushing for
default internet filters. Their influence is obvious in the way the Prime
Minister chose to announce his censorship plans in the paper, and also told
them to declare victory.

The Daily Mail is the second most popular
newspaper in the UK, and runs the most popular online news site in the world.
What you might not know is that The Daily
Mail has a shadowy past steeped in fascism.

Source: The Huffington Post

It’s not a fact they like
to publicise, but it’s no secret that The Daily Mail
supported Hitler and the Nazis prior to World War II and promoted fascism
in the UK in the 1930s.

Harold Sydney Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Rothermere, counted
himself as a friend of Mussolini and Adolf Hitler when he was proprietor of The Daily Mail. Prior to World War II,
he praised Hitler publicly and privately, and met him personally in Germany.
Letters show that Lord Rothermere congratulated Hitler on the annexation of
Czechoslovakia and encouraged him to invade Romania. He also publicly
supported the British Union of Fascists, who were known as “the Blackshirts”
due to their black dress code modelled on Mussolini’s paramilitary squads. In
1934 the paper ran the notorious headline, “Hurrah for the Blackshirts”

“I urge all British young
men and women to study closely the progress of the Nazi regime in Germany. They
must not be misled by the misrepresentations of its opponents. The most
spiteful detractors of the Nazis are to be found in precisely the same sections
of the British public and press as are most vehement in their praises of the
Soviet regime in Russia. They have started a clamorous campaign of denunciation
against what they call “Nazi atrocities” which, as anyone who visits Germany
quickly discovers for himself, consists merely of a few isolated acts of
violence such as are inevitable among a nation half as big again as ours, but
which have been generalized, multiplied and exaggerated to give the impression
that Nazi rule is a bloodthirsty tyranny.”

Today The Daily Mail is controlled by the 4th
Viscount of Rothermere, the great-grandson of the 1st Viscount of
Rothermere.

The Daily
Mail’s Block Porn Campaign

It is quite ironic that The Daily Mail ran a strident media
campaign to ban online pornography because it is hardly a pillar of decorum: it
provides a notoriously gratuitous display of scantily-clad celebrity pictures
on the right sidebar of its website, also known as the “sidebar of shame,” and publishes highly sexualised imagery and even nude pictures itself. It has
run stories about teens in skimpy bikinis and has been accused of sexualising underage girls. Its highly sexualised content
is probably the reason it toppled the New
York Times as the most visited newspaper site in the world.

Thus the crusade against
porn is coming from a newspaper that has been accused of peddling ‘almost porn’. Yet The Daily Maildeclared ‘victory’ when David Cameron made his filtering
announcement. In the self-congratulatory article, the paper boasts it “led the
charge” to introduce default internet filtering. The Prime Minister also
acknowledges this, and is quoted saying. “‘The Daily Mail has campaigned hard
to make internet search engine filters “default on”. Today they can declare
that campaign a success.”

The Daily Mail’s original headline. Note the
‘sidebar of shame’ in full swing.

The caption under a
picture of David Cameron reads: “Victory for the Mail: Prime Minister David
Cameron, pictured today, today announced new rules requiring every internet
connection to have porn blocked unless subscribers ‘opt in’ to obscene
content”.

In fact, the original headline for the story was, “Net porn block on
EVERY home: Victory for the Mail as PM pledges ‘opt in’ rule for all web users”. However,
numerous comments on the article called out The Daily Mail’s hypocrisy due its own
blatant use of sexual content. That could be why the headline was later changed to its current title, “Porn
depicting rape to be BANNED in crackdown on ‘poisonous’ websites as Cameron
unveils protection for every home”.

Perhaps they were trying
to differentiate their own “obscene content” from the kind they were
condemning, but the edited headline is very misleading because the filters
block far more than porn depicting rape.

A
screen shot of an image used in The Daily
Mail’s July 2013 article announcing David Cameron’s censorship
policy

Throughout its “campaign”
the paper, like the government, frequently conflated illegal obscene material
with legal pornography, and used the two interchangeably, which implies that
opposing their campaign means you support the proliferation of the most
horrendous material. And there was no mention that the filters would target
much more than “obscene content” and that legal pornography is just one of many
categories that will be censored by the filters. And while the paper has
campaigned for censorship of legal pornography, it has shamelessly continued to
proliferate voyeuristic content ogling and commenting on women’s body parts on
its popular news site, and the hypocrisy of its position hasn’t escaped attention.

Double
Standards

Soon after his
announcement, the Prime Minister confirmed he will not back calls for Britain’s most widely read newspaper The Sun, owned by global media tycoon
Rupert Murdoch, to stop featuring topless women on page 3 (the object of a current petition with over 190,000 signatures).

So what’s going on here?
David Cameron works hand in glove with the media to block legal pornography
online, but has no qualms if the mainstream media publish nudity on
unrestricted websites and newspapers easily viewed by children. Whose interests
is David Cameron serving? And does anyone seriously believe that a salacious
paper like The Daily Mail
that comments daily on women’s body parts is really concerned about smut? For
that matter is the government genuinely concerned? A Freedom of Information
request revealed that the UK’s Government Computers were Used To Access Porn More Than
300,000 Times between May 2012 and July 2013, the month David Cameron made
his announcement. Then in March 2014 a close aide of David Cameron directly
involved in developing the porn filter policy, resigned after being arrested over child pornography allegations.

The Daily Mail’s pro-Nazi past is of course not
proof that pro-fascism consciously pervades in its editorial stance today. But
it is nevertheless alarming that a paper which supported Hitler, Mussolini and
British fascism has been the biggest propagandist behind David Cameron’s
big-government authoritarian moves. It is doubtful the government could have
gotten this far in its plans without this media support.

Chinese ICT giant Huawei,
founded by ex-Chinese army officer Ren Zhengfei,
has also played a pivotal role in these developments. This company long accused of spying for China, led the way by operating the
first network-level filter in the UK, proving it was technically possible to do
and giving impetus to the government’s plans. When announcing internet
censorship for the UK, David Cameron praised TalkTalk for showing “great
leadership” by having Huawei filter its network. When Ed Vaizey first touted a
network-level filtering policy for the UK via The Sunday Times in 2010, a TalkTalk spokesperson was
quoted saying, “If other companies aren’t going to do it [install filters] of
their own volition, then maybe they should be leant on.”

TalkTalk, which has
previously been accused of secretly monitoring its customers, began offering Huawei’s
filter “Homesafe” in 2011. All of TalkTalk’s UK web traffic is routed
through Homesafe and monitored by the Chinese company whether people have
the filter switched on or not.

Huawei also have a close relationship with BT, another major ISP and
telecommunications provider. In 2013 a Parliamentary Committee rebuked BT’s use
of Huawei to build UK telecoms infrastructure as a security risk.

Both the USA and
Australia have prevented Huawei from bidding for government projects due to
national security fears, because the firm is considered far too close to the
Chinese government. But in December 2013 the Chinese firm was granted permission (a decision David Cameron defended) to
build significant portions of the UK telecoms system, despite warnings from the former Head of Cybersecurity at the UK’s
Ministry of Defence, who claimed the government was “dealing with the devil”.

Is it any coincidence
that, within a year of that cosy meeting, David Cameron called for the UK to
adopt a censorship system that bears similarity to China’s and held up Huawei’s
technology as an example to follow? Is it also a coincidence that in December
2013, the UK government granted Huawei permission to build significant portions
of UK telecoms infrastructure, even though, just the year prior, the Australian Government banned Huawei from bidding for
its National Broadband Network roll-out due to security concerns?

Coincidence or not, it is
quite fitting that David Cameron should cosy up to Huawei while pushing
Chinese-style internet censorship in the UK. One of the things they like to
suppress in China is freedom of religious expression. China has only five
state-sanctioned religious organisations – everything else is technically
illegal and the regime disparagingly labels them “sects” or “cults”, and
practitioners face harassment, imprisonment and even torture. Alternative
spiritual groups targeted include underground Christian churches, Tibetan
Buddhists, and the Falun Gong movement. Groups like these could easily be
termed “esoteric” in the UK too.

Does David Cameron want
to sneak through a clandestine Chinese-style clampdown on spirituality and
political dissent in the UK? Whatever the case, it is highly alarming that
David Cameron holds up technology designed to suppress dissent and religious
minorities in an authoritarian country as a blue print for the UK to follow.

The situation is even
more alarming when you consider the insidious ways alternative spirituality is
already being targeted by other means in the UK. A look at further machinations
underway reveals a stark situation.

A look at the levels of
internet censorship already enforced by mobile phone and public WiFi providers
suggests a worrying trend, with “alternative beliefs” and “esoteric” content in
the firing line.

Mobile phone operator
Orange Phones in the UK has already blocked
websites of so-called “universally acknowledged sects” that promote
“esoteric practices”. The “universal” source classifying “sects” or “esoteric
practices” is not specified, nor is their justification for even blocking such content
in the first place. Like many things about censorship in the UK, the rationale
and agents driving these moves are shrouded in mystery. (Although it should be
noted that Orange is French company, and France has
particularly draconian laws against free religious expression, which might
have something to do with it.)

The government has also
been in close consultations with the UK’s main public WiFi
providers (Arqiva, BT, Nomad, Sky, Virgin and O2) to make their filters “family
friendly”. Similar to the case with ISP filters, the government talks about
blocking pornography, but the filters block a whole lot more.

People have been denied
access to websites labelled “alternative belief/spirituality” in public WiFi
hotspots in the UK. A petition organiser against the UK’s ISP censorship policy
reported having his reiki website blocked in a public café
for instance.

This was not an isolated
incident. A recent report by Adaptive mobile revealed that the blocking of
spiritually-themed websites is widespread on UK WiFi – a staggering 44% of
UK WiFi hotspots block religious sites.

Whether you call it
religious, spiritual, esoteric or alternative beliefs, clearly there is an
effort to target this kind of information. The esoteric label could be applied
to anything providing alternative information that doesn’t fit with the
secretive and powerful elite who don’t want people thinking too much outside
the square – or challenging them. And those blacklisted face the double-whammy
of appearing “guilty by association” by being filtered alongside dangerous,
offensive and illegal content, along with being blocked into oblivion.

Might this filtering be
part a wider agenda to steadily and surreptitiously erode the free expression
of alternative spirituality?

A
Multi-pronged Plan to Silence Dissent?

There seems to be another
prong to this attack. While implementing censorship, the government is also
flagging changes to laws that will disempower those likely to be targeted by
their sweeping censorship.

Considering there have
already been reports of internet filters blocking charities, it is rather
concerning that the government has been pushing the charity-targeting “gagging bill”, which it finally passed in January 2014. The
gagging bill restricts free speech and protest by preventing protest
groups or charities from challenging the government policy in the lead up to
elections by clamping spending caps on organised forms of dissent. Now that
this law is passed, the government can limit any organised protest against the
censorship system it implemented, when David Cameron and his government seek
re-election in 2015. And this is significant when you consider what else is at
stake in the next UK general election.

Under the UK Human Rights
Act (the Act), the UK Government is broadly prohibited from violating the civil
liberties of its people defined in the ECHR, and citizens can seek legal
recourse within UK courts if their individual rights are violated by the
government. This means that civil rights enshrined in the ECHR have legal
enforcement in the UK, giving it much more strength than a mere Declaration of
Human Rights.

One of the civil
liberties protected by the Act includes the freedom of conscience and belief,
which includes the “freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs”. That
freedom includes not just the right to practice one’s beliefs privately, but to
express it openly – something censorship would obstruct. So for example, an
employee of British Airways was able to go the ECHR when the company tried to ban her from wearing
a crucifix, and her religious freedom was upheld.

Freedom of expression in
general is also protected, as is the right to privacy, which may be in conflict
with the government’s mass surveillance, which is the subject of current legal action. So in principle, the Act gives people a way
to challenge the government if their rights are being limited by
government-mandated internet filters.

For the time being, the
government’s strategy to avoid such a legal challenge has been to muddy the
waters by pressuring private companies to introduce censorship “voluntarily”,
rather than requiring them to do it through legislation, making it ambiguous as
to what extent the government holds responsibility. Ultimately, however, the
government plans to scrap the human rights act altogether and has also hinted
at withdrawing from the ECHR completely, which would remove
all possibility of a legal challenge by this avenue.

Although there has been
talk of replacing the ECHR with a British Bill of Rights, this may be the
carrot that leads the donkey. Any Bill the UK creates to replace the ECHR
charter with is likely to be watered down or more restrictive with the effect
of providing people less rights, not more. Otherwise, why even bother with the
replacement?

Another strategy the
government has is to conflate the ECHR with the EU, when the two are not
connected. There is significant resentment to the EU in Britain. The EU is often
criticised for making decisions that suit the elite but not the ordinary
people, but the government is fully committed to staying part of it. So its
strategy is to redirect that resentment toward ECHR and use it a scapegoat, so
it can remain in the elite-centric EU while attacking a separate body more
geared towards giving ordinary people a means to appeal decisions made by the
elite in governments and corporations.

By scrapping the Human
Rights Act, the UK government will be able to curb their own courts from
upholding human rights. Severing ties with the ECHR will then cut off UK
citizens’ last line of appeal. So if a company tries to ban you from wearing a
crucifix to work or blocks your spiritual website, who will you appeal to?

Just as the UK’s sweeping
censorship uses a false premise of “protecting the children” to justify
trampling on the rights of everyone, the attack on human rights in the UK is
supposedly being done on the premise of making it easier for the government to
deport alleged terrorists. The government wants the public to believe it is
necessary to remove everyone’s human rights, because it faced delays in deporting certain individuals linked to terrorism that it
could have prosecuted instead under British criminal law – but chose not to for
political reasons.

The long drawn-out and
expensive delays in deporting Abu Qatada have been used by the government and
certain media outlets to stoke public antagonism towards the Human Rights Act,
such that people have come to see human rights as a threat to their security,
rather than something that protects everyone. This has generated support for
government plans to not only scrap the act but withdraw from the ECHR.

The government would have
known it would face delays under its human rights obligations by attempting to
deport an untried and unconvicted individual to a country where he may be
tortured. If the government really considered Abu Qatada to be a dangerous
criminal, why not just put him on trial in the UK instead of going through the
lengthy expensive deportation route?

The real reason might be
that Abu Qatada was an MI5
double agent. When he was wanted by the UK’s allies early last decade, Time Magazine reported he was being kept, “tucked away in a
safe house in the north of England… fed and clothed by British intelligence
services,” while the UK authorities apparently pretended they did not know
where he was. In all probability, the real reason he was not put on trial was
that it would put his relationship to security services under the microscope. MI5
probably did not want a court scrutinising their close connections with an
individual who the government claimed to be a threat to national security.

Has this whole situation
been engineered as a PR exercise to push public sentiment in favour of scrapping
human rights by stoking terrorism fears, using MI5 asset Abu Qatada as a
scapegoat? Whatever the case, it looks fishy, and the government’s plans to gag
debate prior to the next election and remove legal avenues to challenge
censorship once re-elected should ring alarm bells.

Persecution
of Alternative Spirituality and Esotericism through History

As we try to fathom the
UK’s insidious push to target alternative spirituality by a range of means, it
is worth remembering there is a historical context to this. The suppression of
“esoteric” information is nothing new.

Throughout time there
have been attempts to suppress the free flow of esoteric knowledge, which has the
potential to empower the individual. Sometimes this has been done by dominant
religious institutions, as with the brutal oppression of the Inquisition for
example, or by irreligious forces opposed to spirituality, as in the religious
purges of the Soviet Union. Esoteric knowledge is powerful as it allows people to wake
up and question their reality, and such people cannot easily be manipulated by
the powers that be. As in the past, today there are those who wish to suppress
esoteric knowledge – the hidden mystical side of spirituality – as well as
erode the place of public religious teachings of mainstream religion. Today these
efforts are more subtle and clandestine. Slipping esoteric material categories
into internet filters is a way to suppress information covertly, without people
realising what they are not seeing.

This is what makes ISP
level default filtering of the internet in the UK so alarming, because these
filters will reach the majority of UK households and will be centralised and
controlled by a few corporations behind a veil of unaccountable obscurity. The
categories they block are broad, and no one really knows who is ultimately
responsible for what they target. Since most people stick with default internet
settings, their reach and effects could be insidious.

This situation has very
serious ramifications for the free flow of alternative viewpoints, whether
spiritual, political, or otherwise, which could fall into vague categories like
“esoteric material” or even recently touted “extremist websites”.

An Unfolding
Agenda

It is obvious that the
moral cause of protecting children has been hijacked as a Trojan horse cover
story to ram through a sweeping censorship regime that will ultimately restrict
the internet for the majority of the UK population.

Censorship has been
foisted on the UK under a diversionary pretext, led by Claire Perry, the
protégé of a 7-time Bilderberg attendee, George Osborne, a close friend to
Prime Minister David Cameron. Now, it seems the government is clamping down
organised dissent and is seeking to entrench its censorship agenda by stoking
terrorism fears to legitimise removing legal avenues to challenge these
policies after the next election in 2015.

Both major parties in the
UK have close ties to the Bilderberg group. Could that be why these
authoritarian censorship machinations have bipartisan support? Is the UK just
the first western country where these murky censorship clampdown measures will
be rolled out? Is it just a coincidence that UK-style measures have since been
broached in other Western nations such as Australia and Canada?

When you look at the
interconnected web of elite interests involved in this scheme – encompassing
the Bilderberg group, the UK government, major political parties, religious lobbyists,
a firm linked to the Chinese government extending influence into the UK
telecoms sector, the touting of technology developed to suppress dissent and
alternative beliefs as a blueprint for the UK – and when you factor in the
stealthy and deceptive way alternative beliefs are targeted under the banner of
making the internet “family friendly,” the situation appears grim.

Most people would agree
children should be protected from internet pornography and violent material. I
don’t want to gloss over the damaging effects pornography can have and the
benefits of shielding children from mass exposure to it. But that can be done
with through proper supervision in conjunction with transparently operated
filters installed in the home, chosen and operated by parents and carers,
rather than shadowy, creeping centralised censorship systems operated by
corporations without scrutiny. Parenting is the responsibility of parents and
carers, not of the State or corporations.

The internet has the
unique capacity to empower individuals to access and share important
information the mass media does not cover. It sets a dangerous precedent if the
internet in “free” countries is hijacked via censorship to be rigged in favour
of corporations, government and dominant institutions, while those offering an
alternative voice are blocked out. There are sinister forces who would like to
suppress the knowledge about how to free our consciousness from manipulation.
If “esoteric” and “alternative belief” websites are blocked, then anything that
questions, challenges or provides an alternative view of the dominant power
structures of society could be targeted and marginalised.

As the Bilderberg group
wind up their meeting behind a cloak of secrecy in Copenhagen, and with the
UK’s next election looming in 2015, we need to watch this space. The
politicians must know that the public is alert to this agenda and sees through
the deception. Those who care for truth and freedom should remain vigilant and
ensure that people’s rights and freedoms are not silently stripped away.

We provide a live link to your original material on your site (and
links via social networking services) - which raises your ranking on search
engines and helps spread your info further!This site is
published under Creative Commons Fair Use Copyright (unless an individual
article or other item is declared otherwise by the copyright holder). Reproduction
for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged,- if you give attribution to the work &
author. Please include a (preferably active) link to the original (along with
this or a similar notice).

Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or
mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web –
but remember attribution!

If you like what you see, please send a donation (no amount is too
small or too large) or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

Live long and prosper! Together we can create the best of all possible
worlds…

Follow New Illuminati on Twitter

SUBSCRIBE to the NEW ILLUMINATI YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Contact Us

Welcome to the new Enlightenment, an era when suppressed science, hidden history and the enlightening nature of reality are all revealed to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

These are the thoughts and ideas of New Illuminati - bold forerunners and pioneers of new awareness all over the globe.

Notes on new emerging paradigms from the NEXUS New Times Magazine Founder R. Ayana, who lives in a remote Australian rainforest (and is no longer involved with the magazine) - Catching drops from the deluge in a paper cup since 1984.

§ 107.Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include — (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

This material is published under Creative Commons Copyright – reproduction for non-profit use is OK. Awesome Inc. theme. Powered by Blogger.

Claimer

All opinions, facts, debates and conjectures xpressed herein are xtrusions of macrocosmic consciousness into your field of awareness. The New Illuminati are not to be held responsible or accountable for flashes of insight, epiphany, curiosity, transformation or enlightenment experienced by any person, human or otherwise.